What do you mean by "dancing on the edge" - does it matter? is classification an important issue?

It's like what a vampire is and can do. What I see is "rules" being asserted on what a story has include for it to be BDSM (with the added suggestion here that the characters have to understand the rules and get them right for it to be BDSM). A. if it's bound or physically humiliated, I think it can fall into BDSM, and B. I don't think that characters have to be so well versed in club definitions of how to do it right that they have to do it right in a story.

The example here is the criticism of the dominator using "please." Maybe he just has never heard of anyone else's "rules" for what he should be saying.

But, yes, classification is important, because you are trying to link the story to a reading audience looking for such stories. You have to put it in a category. And there's the rub with these "there are strict rules for this" people. They will assert that the stories put in the categories they read have to meet the "rules" of the category as they understand them, or they will criticize and/or downrate the story. You just have to decide what you want--to write the story you want to write or to fall into the formulaic perceptions of others on what "has to be" done in that category.

Im sorry arragorn. Yet again an enemy of the forum wants to jump in. sr's ridiculous rant, somehow conflating vampires with BDSM, is best ignored. He hates not being involved and, whilst he can give helpful advice, his comments here are not helpful and his arrogance against BDSM authors is just pitiful.

What's hilarious (typically) about Elfin's off-the-wall personal attack is that I'm pretty sure I'm being supportive of what Aragorn61 wants to do with the category.

Wait, you didn't actually expect Elfin to read the whole thread before talking shit did you?

I agree you need to fit into the category your writing for (unless you like getting blasted) but personally I feel that BDSM starts pretty tame and ends pretty heavy, as far as what goes on. I do believe there should be room for the softer stuff, even if the traditionalists don't agree.

I was a little thrown by the dominator constantly (well OK several times) saying "please". I also noticed that he called her "darling". That doesn't really ring true.

You're correct on please, that just doesn't ring true.

But Darling or any term of endearment can work if its said in a sarcastic enough tone.

Granted in this piece it didn't come across that way, but I would not say it doesn't ring true. Personally I've referred to subs as sweetie in the past and I doubt any of them would tell you I was soft on them.

__________________
Something "real men" should know.

The queen is the most powerful piece in the game of chess and frequently has to protect the rather weak king.

But Darling or any term of endearment can work if its said in a sarcastic enough tone.

Granted in this piece it didn't come across that way, but I would not say it doesn't ring true. Personally I've referred to subs as sweetie in the past and I doubt any of them would tell you I was soft on them.

Well put. The thing I've found reading BDSM here is that there are rules, often for the safety of the sub, that are sacrosant. Just read the 'contract' in Fifty Shades of Grey. Safe words and limits seem always to apply and to compare affectionate references with 'pleading' seems incongrous with sub/Master relationships/games.

Well put. The thing I've found reading BDSM here is that there are rules, often for the safety of the sub, that are sacrosant. Just read the 'contract' in Fifty Shades of Grey. Safe words and limits seem always to apply and to compare affectionate references with 'pleading' seems incongrous with sub/Master relationships/games.

Derro, I've been here from the start - only just beaten by Penn Lady.

Never equate True BDSM with Shades of Gray unless you're looking to get into a relationship with an abusive thug.

If you think that's just me, feel free to go to any BDSM blog or chat room and bring it up. That book is vilified there for what it is, inaccurate and to the naive, quite dangerous.

EL James should be bound with zip ties for an hour so she can see what damage her misconceptions can lead to.

__________________
Something "real men" should know.

The queen is the most powerful piece in the game of chess and frequently has to protect the rather weak king.

Never equate True BDSM with Shades of Gray unless you're looking to get into a relationship with an abusive thug.

If you think that's just me, feel free to go to any BDSM blog or chat room and bring it up. That book is vilified there for what it is, inaccurate and to the naive, quite dangerous.

EL James should be bound with zip ties for an hour so she can see what damage her misconceptions can lead to.

OK, I'm no expert, but if I go by your, albeit convincing, deriding of E L James, don't I also have to take issue with sr who suggests blurring definitions for the BDSM cat is as acceptable as redefining descriptions of vampires?

Not getting at anybody, but do we have to assume that lit's BDSM cat excludes 'non-true' BDSM as you define it?

E. L. James pretty much proves my point. She has either ignored or doesn't understand (apparently--I don't know personally, as I neither read much BDSM nor have I read her books) the "rules" of BDSM, and a blockbuster best-seller buying public has voted with their checkbooks that that is just fine with them. Pretty much everyone is thumbing his/her nose at the concept that you have to write within "rules" to be writing somewhere in the realm of BDSM. For bondage, all you have to do is include restraints and for SM all you have to do is include some form of abusive treatment for sexual satisfaction. There's no legitimate authority dictating what you can or can't write and readers have to read in this realm.

E. L. James pretty much proves my point. She has either ignored or doesn't understand (apparently--I don't know personally, as I neither read much BDSM nor have I read her books) the "rules" of BDSM, and a blockbuster best-seller buying public has voted with their checkbooks that that is just fine with them. Pretty much everyone is thumbing his/her nose at the concept that you have to write within "rules" to be writing somewhere in the realm of BDSM. For bondage, all you have to do is include restraints and for SM all you have to do is include some form of abusive treatment for sexual satisfaction. There's no legitimate authority dictating what you can or can't write and readers have to read in this realm.

I haven't read it either but by all accounts it is a badly written and repititive tale....and I think it's very dodgy ground to attempt to validate anything using the choices of the populace at large, they voted in Bush for christ sake!
Logically, though, I doubt that the majority of BDSM participants set boundaries on what they do and don't do...I bet they welcome the occasional surprise

I haven't read it either but by all accounts it is a badly written and repititive tale....and I think it's very dodgy ground to attempt to validate anything using the choices of the populace at large, they voted in Bush for christ sake!
Logically, though, I doubt that the majority of BDSM participants set boundaries on what they do and don't do...I bet they welcome the occasional surprise

That depends on what validation you're talking about. When you want to validate whether there's an audience for a book, you do it on sales. That's the problem here--the assumption that there are "rules" about this established by some authority that are separate from and supercede how people vote with their attention and personal preferences. There aren't. There aren't any "people" with the authority to tell you how you can write or read your BDSM and how you can't--or that you can only have characters in a story exercising some form of BDSM if they know how the (nonexistent authoritative) "rules" say they have to be doing it. If it includes being bound, it's some form of BD; if it includes abusive sex, it's some form of SM.